Analysis of Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals

Analysis of Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals When God died, what happened to the people? Therefore neither can an animal move about in the closed as such, no more than it can comport itself toward the unconcealed. The animal is excluded from the essential domain of the conflict between unconcealedness and concealedness. The sign of such an exclusion is that no animal or plant â€Å"has the word. (Heidegger: 1992:159-60) The concealed in Heidegger is that which conceals from us it’s being. What emerges in Heidegger, in his pursuit of this clearing, is the slim line – the slippery border, between human and animal. The animal in Heidegger cannot see the sun as it rushes towards it: it can never dissocial the sun as a being. It is at once open and non-open, or rather, it operates in an ambiguity between the two fields. Man in Heidegger becomes that which is produced precisely at this border: at the moment of caesura and articulation between human and animal: it is this that passes for man, and it is this than expresses well the relationship of man to language. Man is never outside language: language is always already expressed as a radical exclusion of that which is not which operates as a fundamental category of exclusion(Agamben: 2004a: 91) The last century and a half have been full of attempts to move outside of language: to pass into new notions of subjectivity that move outside of what it is to be human. Nietzsche’s attempt to destroy traditional notions of subjectivity stands out as a crystallisation point in a process that sees Delouse, Foucault and Derrida, to name the three philosophers this dissertation will discuss, move outside notions of the human trapped within language and the creation of the subject. In doing so they criticise a notion of the subject trapped within binary constructions and the hierarchical notions of the subject that one finds in Hegel; in doing so they echo the criticism of Christianity that Nietzsche made. This dissertation will analyse the reasons for which Nietzsche attempts to destroy the traditional notion of the subject and replace it with a particularism notion of the subject: forever in astute of becoming that escapes binary configurations. We will evaluate to what extent he was successful in his enterprise, and what type of subjectivity was brought forth. In analysing the ways in which Deleuze,Foucault and Derrida take up his project, we will analyse a genealogy of thought that attempts to successively move beyond what we understands human. These three methods open up a series of liberating possibilities to philosophy and politics, and the configurations of these possibilities we be analysed. However, in the radical indeterminacy of Derrida, in the pessimistic, frantic activism of Foucault, and in the schizo-analysis of Delouse we can detect the same problem that we find in Nietzsche: at work in him is that oblivion (or as Bataille would term it, that excess) â€Å"which lies at the foundation of the biologist of the nineteenth century and of psychoanalysis† and what produces â€Å"monstrous anthropomorphization of†¦ the animal and a corresponding animalization of man† (Heidegger: 1992:152). Heidegger still believed, as none of the philosophers considered in the dissertation do, in the possibility of a good project of the polis; that there was still a good historical space in which one could find a historical destiny grounded in being. He, later in life, realized his mistake. In this, he comes toe point where his criticism of Nietzsche becomes most pointed. Nietzsche’s eulogisation of man is that which pre-empts the emptying out of value we find a man at the end of history. Nietzsche is blind to what the caesura of naming man as such might mean: in doing so, and in asserting the gelatinisation of the truth of the polis, the ambiguous border between man and animal collapses. It is precisely the â€Å"essential border between the mystery of the living being and the mystery of what is historical† (Heidegger: 1992:239) that is not dealt with by Nietzsche’s work and it is thus constantly exposed to the possibility of an â€Å"unlimited and groundless anthropomorphization of the animal† that places the animal above man and makes a ‘super-man’ (ibid:160) of it. Life becomes reified over and above the precise condition of its existence; that very condition which makes it always already in dependency on those very grounds of its existence. We will find this same problem repeated in Foucault, who in his criticism of the construction of the subject in modernity illustrates the way in which modern notions of sovereignty act directly on the bios of modern man; this is where modernity begins to act on animal life(this time where equivalence has rendered the possibility of time null)and what is at stake in the construction of the subject is the possibility of his life. Yet, Foucault, like Nietzsche, illustrates this genealogy of dependence without being able to elucidate its historical specificity, which is in its construction of a zone of exclusion at the basis of ontology itself (this can be seen in Foucault’s error in treating bio power as a modern phenomenon). This same problem is manifest in the differ and of Derrida, and in Deleuze’s notion of the organs without a body: each in turns finds itself the symptom of the radical historicism. Each proclaims this symptom a cure, without realising that the cure they offer is precisely that which is the symptom. In all these theorists what this amounts to is misunderstanding of the nature of language. Thus, while Nietzsche manages to destroy stable notions of the subject, the unstable notion he replaces them with, while apparently liberating, exists within the same binaries he seeks to destroy, and moreover, allows for the exactly the same herd instinct that he seeks to overcome. I. Why I needed to kill God I.I We see ourselves in every mirror What, in all strictness, has really conquered the Christian God? (†¦) Christian morality itself, the concept of truthfulness taken more and more strictly, the confessional subtlety of the Christian conscience translated and sublimated into the scientific conscience, into intellectual cleanliness at any price. To view nature as if it were a proof of the goodness and providence of a God; to interpret history to the glory of divine reason, as the perpetual witness to a moral world order and moral intentions; to interpret one’s own experiences, as pious men long interpreted them, as if everything were preordained, everything a sign, everything sent for salvation of the soul that now belongs to the past, that has conscience against it†¦. In this way, Christianity as a dogma was destroyed by its own morality†¦. (Nietzsche: 1969:160) Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals outlines the way in which Christianity formulates its notion of the subject. The Christian super-ego is posited as salvation, as the point towards which one works. Thus, the Christian subject exists as, first and foremost, alack: it is not what it wishes to be. Yet, as Nietzsche points out, this lack is a condition and construction of the subject within Christianity: one resembles oneself and yet in order to find deliverance must become more of oneself and in doing so one finds justification for the present order of things. The Christian superegos to be found in God, and then, surprise, surprise, the Christian ego can be found placed in the soul of the body. This parallels the analysis that Foucault makes of the subject (1999, 1975). The law construct the subject as normal (and in doing so sets up an exclusion of the abnormal, or that which is not: that which has no voice – icon-human) and in this process creates a desiring-subject, who desires what the law has not given it. Yet these desires are what are created by the notion of the subject placed upon one: one is created absent, oars not that, not this, but always awaiting a day when one can be called by a proper name. It is this awaiting a proper name that Nietzsche attacks most strongly, and in this theory of language we shall see Nietzsche allows no place for such a proper name. A proper name relation, Nietzsche argues, is always a relationship between a creditor and a debtor; it is always typified by the dependence or lack, and as such prevents the possibility that of morality to be free and joyous. Nietzsche though, and is not commented on very much, reserves some tender thoughts for Christianity. It is a primal Christianity, a Dionysian Christianity, that Nietzsche can endorse. As much can be seen in the quote that started this section: Nietzsche’s criticism of Christianity should not be seen to be limited to Christianity. Rather, it extends to all relationships of debt and obligation to a structuring super-ego. It was not Nietzsche, he claims, that killed Christianity, it was Christianity itself, and Nietzsche loathes the nihilism that replaces it just as much. We can discern three criticisms of Christianity/nihilism in the quote that started this dissertation. Nietzsche elaborates that one of the structures of Christianity is the idea of a puritanical truthfulness, which has been sublimated into scientific consciousness. Nietzsche’s primary criticism of this truthfulness is that is relies upon a correspondence theory of truth: it requires an external state that can be matched in some way to an internal state (which then requires a subject to have such an internal state). For Nietzsche, consciousness created in such a way in simply ashram, an intentional lie: consciousness lies free and unbounded – it has no centre around which it can orientate itself. Furthermore, the mapping between a real world of existent things (Kant’s ding an such)and a subjective world of language is not possible. It is not possible because language only ever refers to itself. To use Saussure’s(1995:12) terminology, a sign can only have meaning within another setoff signs; it has no essential relationship to the world that is signified. A correspondence theory of truth attempts to hold up astatic a world that is in constant flux and in doing so negates the possibility of human freedom, which Nietzsche opposes to belief. The importance of this critique of the Christian subject will be returned to later in the dissertation when we consider Nietzsche’s theory of language. The second crucial critique of Christianity made in the quote that begins this dissertation is of history as possessing meaning, as divine providence being read into history as if it were a series of signs. This resembles the structural properties of psychoanalysis that Delouse(1983a, 1983b, 1984) was so devastatingly to criticise. One can read one’s entire life as a history of redemption, as Benjamin (1986:112)comments. In this reading, every moment of one’s life in which one fails, feels regret of guilt because one is not conterminous with the notion of the subject given to you, can be read as a sign of messianic moment to come: it is to deny the contingent and necessary existence one has in favour of a reified notion of being that removes life from life. Nietzsche realises that such a realisation about life is scary, and he realises that people will cling onto a Christian notion of belief even if it has no rational foundation: that is why in Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1 969) he attempts to convince people through rhetoric rather than argument. Several elements of Nietzsche’s thought here are important to note. While he attacks Christianity, in the long quote we started the section with he already observes that the technological-scientific paradigm replaces Christianity while adopting all of its tenants. As Nietzsche(1974:108) comments: â€Å"after Buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. -And we- we still have to vanquish his shadow, too.† Science is this shadow: it refuses an engagement with the world in favour of a mystified detached observer who can sit back and observe the world rather than engage within its context. This DE contextualisation actually ends up relativizing the world. This is a radical historicism that believes the role of the pasties to come to the rescue of the future: temporality is shortened tallow only a pre sent, an immediate process of desiring-lack and sustenance. It allows for the feigned equivalence of all men, as they are all equal as subjects, and as all in this equivalence all notions of importance and goals are emptied of meaning by an effectively moribund set of values that deny life in favour of a search for authentic experience. This search for authentic experience is termed active nihilism in Nietzsche: it is an attempt to confront the emptiness of value categories with frenetic action: this is what Size (2001:48) calls the passion for the real: the passion for frenetic experience that ultimately culminates in its simulacrum. It culminates in its simulacrum because the passion for the real (as opposed to the empty appearance people inhabit) eventually becomes the passion for the real without risk – for one only risks if there is something one is willing to die for: for Nietzsche the chance and contingency of the eternal return – and thus we see the Nietzsche an concepts of passive and active nihilism end up, in late modern capitalism, becoming one. We can see that the co-existence of what we could term the correspondence theory of truth and the history as destiny theory (where everything is able tube reconciled to the present) inevitably end up in this structure of nihilism. Both of these theories rely on several underlying structures of thought that Nietzsche was also quick to criticise in Christianity. Innis analysis of the origins of Christianity, he notes (1956:112):â€Å"Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life’s nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in another or better life.† Christianity was always underlined by a series of binary logics: this is not the right life: this one is better; hate: love, God: Satan. It is this binary thinking that comes in for a huge amount of criticism from Nietzsche. It is these binaries that ignore that the world is in astute of becoming, that it is forever in a state of flux. Nietzsche notes (1966:12): â€Å"it may be doubted, firstly whether there exists any antithesis at all, and secondly whether these popular evaluations and value anti-thesis, on which the metaphysicians have set their seal, are not perhaps foreground valuations, merely provisional perspectives. â€Å"Therefore, Nietzsche’s criticism is not simply of our values, as we have seen in the previous paragraphs, but of the way in which our values are constructed. Nietzsche’s theory of language illustrates that each of the terms in binary series is dependent on the other. Butler (1990,1993) undertakes similar enterprise inspired by Nietzsche when she investigates the dependency of the category women on the category man and vice versa. Power is exercised, Nietzsche understands, in the formation of the very categories themselves, not merely in the ascription of certain people to good and certain people to bad. It is a mistake to fight for the category of lack, because the detestable thing is the very category: by fighting against the lack (e.g. of women for rights) one is accepting the terms of the herd mentality; that one must accept the givens of the situation and its binary categories. This is why a genealogy of morals is necessary, to (Butler: 1990:ix)â€Å"investigate the political stakes in designating as an origin and cause those identity categories that are in fact the effects of institutions, practices, discourses with multiple and diffuse points of origin.† Such pursuit unseats the claim of a binary logic to an objective reality: they show them as temporal formations that constitute a world for the subject. However, such a world is always shot through with lack. One can illustrate this using Alcan’s (1981) theory of mirrors, which he derives from Nietzsche’s view of the subject. In Alcan’s view, one is never identical to the role one has been assigned in life. The social formation of life (which is an appearance) is full of inconsistency and incompleteness. As Christina Wolf (1980:151) comments in her novel: Nelly couldn’t help it: the charred building made her sad. But she didn’t know that she was feeling sad [my emphasis], because she wasn’t supposed to feel sad. She had long ago begun to cheat herself out of her true feelings†¦.Gone, forever gone, is the beautiful, free correlation between emotions and events†¦. It wouldn’t have taken much for Nelly to have succumbed to an improper emotion: compassion. But healthy German common sense built barrier against it: anxiety. The character Nelly feels the dissonance between the world she is in and the world she experiences: she experiences anxiety over it. Such anxiety is the mark of the problem of binary categorisation. This categorisation does not resemble the world, which is in flux, but it places over it a series of categories that are power relationships designed to constitute you as a subject. We can perhaps draw a parallel here between what Nietzsche analyses in his philosophy of language as the productive power of the grammar of an age and what Laplace(1989:130), following Alcan, calls the source-object of drives. These unconscious formations are an encounter between an individual whose psycho-somatic structures are situated predominantly at the level of need, and signifiers emanating from an adult. Those signifiers pertain to the satisfaction of the child’s needs, but they also convey the purely interrogative potential of other messages—and those other messages are sexual. These enigmatic messages set the child the difficult, or even impossible, task of mastery and symbolization and the attempt to perform it inevitably leaves behind unconscious residues†¦. I refer to them as the source objects of the drives. What one must be careful to do here is to distinguish between the early Nietzsche and his later work. In early work such as the Birth of Tragedy (1956), Nietzsche can still talk about an essential essence that the Christian or Apollonian reasoning hides. In his later work he fully endorses the view that consciousness is but surface: a radically anti-essentialist position that refuses the possibility of an outside of language or of consciousness. There is then, no real that one can break through the appearance to get to, as one might in psychoanalysis. However, that does not necessarily mean the psychoanalytic reading were doing here is incorrect. Laconia analysis departs from the Freudian analysis that Delouse criticizes in its conception of the subject. For Nelly, the character in Wolf’s novel, the state fore-anxiety might be referred to as true, but a sense of what it is would be to call it uninhibited: free from the strictures of power. In the later Nietzsche, the ability t o escape the possibility of the subject is ambiguous. What Nelly asks for is not an absolute escape, as Laplace does not ask that the child can master the symbolization of his parents and escape the drives. Rather, what is inferred is continual tension and thrust against that which claims to be objective and masks desire, put in a Delusion idiom: it is the consistent schizoid refusal to stasis. As such, it parallels the construction of the subject in Foucault. Like Nietzsche and Butler, Foucault performs a genealogy. Like the later Nietzsche, Foucault realizes the impossibility of breaking through language. One is always already constructed as a subject: any attempt to break out of this trap relies on an exterior moral framework that simply replicates the binaries of an existing power discourse. Foucault (1979:178) notes that â€Å"discourse creates the object of which it speaks.† Discourse gives rise to a subject, and an attempt to break out of the subject through a call to a value (such as revolutionary purity, truth) falls into the same power trap as existing political discourse. What Foucault and Nietzsche both call into question is the notion of valorisation itself: that which always assumes a dichotomousbinarisation. However, rather than placing their project within an appeal to the real outside of language, both claim the most one can does attack language thro ugh language. This task means to constantly reveal that which appears as objective as actually a temporally structured mask of power. Thus for Foucault (1984:217): The real political task in a society such as ours is to criticize the working of institutions which appear to be both neutral and independent; to criticize them in such a manner that the political violence which has always exercised itself through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight them. This task has no end or limit: indeed, an end or limit is part of the notion of the structure of power; that there is this goal that you must attain, that you are not this, though at a certain point you may indeed attain it. We can see such notions of end goal rely on the interpretation of history as divine providence (or in the secular historicist version, history being called to the rescue of the present)that Nietzsche was so quick to criticise as ignoring the contingency and chance of existence. Both of these parallel Deleuze’s criticism of hierarchical structure as that which inhibits desire and presses it into the service of power. What this entails is not simply the refutation of God at the centre of the world, defining the notion of our being. It is a refutation of a centre of the world. Secularism simply replaces God with man, and declares that the self-autonomous mains that which defines our values, when we do not act in a way accorded to by the hegemony, then it is u s who are lacking. Thus, Nietzsche(1962:346) makes a comment much like Marx when he says â€Å"we now laugh when we find ‘Man and World’ placed beside one another, separated by the sublime presumption of the little world ‘and.’ Thus, in Nietzsche it is not simply Christianity but its zombie replacement rationality that needs to be criticised. Foucault continues this task in The Order of Things (1994), attacking the Human account of causality and truth than requires a one to one mapping between things and their referents. This criticism is possible because, as Nietzsche notes (1968:616) â€Å"the world with which we are concerned . . .is not a fact . . . it is in flux, as something in a state of becoming, as a falsehood always changing but never getting near the truth: for—there is no truth.† This is the strongest statement of Nietzsche’s project. He wants to undermine the notion of truth and reveal it for a set of power constructions and particularities. With the notion of truth, the notion of the proper name (the proper place for the human subject) becomes impossible, and what opens up is decentred multitude of consciousness like that which Delouse (1980:332) outlines in Mille Plateaux . This project would have what is productive as that which is nomadic, which refuses all forms of hierarchy in favour of that which is additive. To carry out such project it is necessary to destroy the possibility of belief. I.II Our beliefs are our weakness If there is today still no lack of those who do not know how indecent it is to believeor a sign of decadence, of a broken will to livewell, they will know it tomorrow. (Nietzsche: 1990:3) For Nietzsche, belief requires something outside of oneself. Indeed, belief can be understood as the opposite to freedom in Nietzsche’s thought. To believe in something is to believe in what that thing has made you into: it is to believe that one has something internal (belief) that can be referred to the world. As Nietzsche notes (ibid:347): Once a human being reaches the fundamental conviction that he must be commanded, he becomes a believer.’ Conversely, one could conceive of such a pleasure and power of self-determination, such a freedom of the will that the spirit would take leave of all faith and every wish for certainty, being practiced in maintaining himself on insubstantial ropes and possibilities and dancing even near abysses. As we have noted above, it is not enough to simply get rid of God. What happens to the people after we get rid of God? They run together, as a herd, scared, into other formations of command, such as nationalism. It is interesting to note here Foucault’s comment, that the challenge of nationalism (1994:228) was to â€Å"establish a system of signs in congruence with the transcendence of being.† It was to believe in a new grammar that replaced the old certainties of life with new certainties: the certainty of the glory of the death of the unknown soldier for the transcendent nation. That is why Nietzsche says,(1990:15): â€Å"we are not getting rid of God because we still believe in grammar.† Nietzsche’s real challenge is almost a challenge against language: it is an attempt to consistently run up against the limit of language and refute its hegemonic possibilities (e.g. in the distribution of tenses) at every turn. A grammar forces one to give lie to a real ity: the only such lies Nietzsche thinks are acceptable are innocent lies, those lies that enable communication in contingent fashion, that are not totalising and do not exceed the moment of their own expression. What happens with the new certainties is that they still rely on a concept of will. They ask one to partake in a world in which one is necessarily excluded (you are not this, yet†¦). For Nietzsche (1924:14),to believe in the will is to believe â€Å"every individual action is isolate and indivisible .† Thus runs counter to the idea of flux Nietzsche takes from Heraclitus. Actions are not simply formed but are always already part of a social world that means individual isolatable action is impossible. As is thinking. Thinking (Nietzsche: 1968:477)â€Å"as epistemologists conceive it, simply does not occur, it is a quite arbitrary fiction, arrived at by selecting one element from the process and eliminating all the rest, an artificial arrangement for the purpose of intelligibility.† This process of intelligibility constructs a world in which one is dependent on the process of selection: thought, like and will, becomes a tool to be used: a means-end relationship that requires the a priori separation of subject and object, thought and world, that Nietzsche so convincingly refutes. He notes (1990:54) that â€Å"the man of faith, the believer of every sort is necessarily dependent mansuch as cannot out of himself posit ends at all. The ‘believer does not belong to himself, he can be only a means, he haste be used, he needs someone who will use him.† In the hands of God, or secularism, agency is always placed outside yourself in the objective world that you lack. The weak believer who does not think that he wills(which is already a mistake) at least (ibid: 18) â€Å"puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already (principle of â€Å"belief†).† To change this it is not enough to attack reason (as Adorn and Horkheimer do in The Dialectic of Enlightenment [1972]) but to attack the notion of the instincts. Instinct, while normally associated with that which is most natural, is in Nietzsche a product of discourse and habit over centuries, it is an unthinking subjectivity masquerading as the natural order of things. It is given by the law, and (Nietzsche:1990:57) â€Å"the authority of the law is established by the thesis: God gave it, the ancestors lived it.† To free habit, as we noticed earlier, requires not an attack on reason but an attack on habit, on unreflexive action: we need to liberate man from cause and effect. This task requires that man be liberated from the notion of the name. As Nietzsche (1956:20) claims: The lordly right of giving names extends so far that one should allow oneself to conceive the origin of language itself as an expression of power on the part of the rulers: they say this is this and this, they seal everything and event with a sound, as it were, take possession of it This feat requires a liberation from language. Here Nietzsche is at his most powerful, for he realises that it is in the very nature of language itself that the origin of power lays. Indeed, there is strong correlation between the attack on the sovereign in Nietzsche and Foucault and Saussaurian linguistics. In both the argument relies on the non-relation between signs and what they represent, and yet the continued claim of signs to be coterminous with what they represent, taking possession of it. Against this, Nietzsche wants to liberate us from names (1990:8). That no one is any longer made accountable, that the kind of being manifested cannot be traced to a cause prima, that the world is a unity neither as sensorium nor as spirit, this alone is the great liberation. This flux of things, clearly prevents the emergence of a subject: consciousness here, and for Nietzsche’s thought as a whole has, has no predetermined pattern. What we need to fight, for Nietzsche, is the giving of the pattern, the idea that the whole is no longer whole(1974:22). What is the sign of every literary decadence? That life no longer dwells in the whole. The word becomes sovereign and leaps out of the sentence, the sentence reaches out and obscures the meaning of the page, the page gains life at the expense of the wholethe whole is no longer a whole. I.III The Grammar of the Age, or how I learned to love the Word Life (Nietzsche: 1990:11) is a â€Å"continuous, homogenous, undivided, indivisible flowing.† For it is not the world that is simple and exact(what one could call the assigning of the world to the word: or to its lieu proper), rather through words we â€Å"are still continually misled into imagining things as being simpler than they are, separate from one another, indivisible, each existing in and for itself.† When Nietzsche writes this, he has abandoned the distinction between the apparent and the real world. There is no ideal for (ibid: 6): â€Å"with the real world we have also abolished the apparent world.† Such a world allows no notions of predestination, and no correspondence theory of truth. Anyone who speaks of such things is a liar (ibid: 38): One must know today that a theologian, a priest, a pope does not merely err in every sentence he speaks, he liesthat he is no longer free to lie innocently, out of ignorance. The priest knows as well as everyone that there is no longer any God, any sinner, any ‘redeemerthat free will, moral world-order are liesintellectual seriousness, the profound self-overcoming of the intellect, no longer permits anyone not to know about these things. What do we replace this met discourse with? We cannot replace it with a singular subject: a new revolutionary ideal or perfect subject, for this would be to become but another priest. Nietzsche (1968:490)argues: â€Å"the assumption of one single subject is perhaps unnecessary; perhaps it is just as permissible to assume a multiplicity of subjects, whose interaction and struggle is the basis of our thought and our consciousness in general? . . . My hypothesis: the subject as multiplicity. . . The continual transistorizes and fleetingness of the subject.† This is precisely what Delouse echoes half a century later when he claims (1983a: 5): â€Å"production as process overtakes all idealistic categories and constitutes a cycle whose relationship to desire is that of an imminent principle.† This multiplicity, one might ask: how does one get there, and what does one do when one is multiple, when one is the Dionysian figure who Nietzsche claims (1956:45) is in constant state of becoming, who is â€Å"the nominal â€Å"I† that is always becoming and his intoxicated state sounds out the depth of Being.† In one sense for Nietzsche this is an idle question: one cannot assume multitude is something in itself, indeed (1968:560): â€Å"that things possess a constitution in themselves quite apart from interpretation and subject

Death of a Modernist Salesman Essay -- Death Salesman essays

Death of a Modernist Salesman      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The modernist movement in writing was characterized by a lack of faith in the traditional ways of explaining life and its meaning.   Religion, nationalism, and family were no longer seen as being infallible.   For the modernist writers, a sense of security could no longer be found.   They could not find any meaning or order in the old ways.   Despair was a common reaction for them.   The dilemma they ran into was what to do with this knowledge.   Poet Robert Frost phrased their question best in his poem â€Å"The Oven Bird.†Ã‚   Frost’s narrator and the bird about which he is speaking both are wondering â€Å"what to make of a diminished thing† (Baym 1103).   The modernist writers attempted to mirror this despair and tried to superimpose meaning on it or find meaning in it.   The old frames of reference were no longer meaningful.   Newer ones had to be sought.   This belief gave them license to create new points of reference, which at least held some meaning for them, or to comment on the remains of the old.   These writers referred often to shattered illusions, feelings of alienation, and the fragmentation of the remains of tradition.   Although society was making technological advances, many of these writers felt that it was declining in other ways.   They saw this progression as being made at the expense of individuality and the individual’s sense of true self-worth. Arthur Miller’s writings are characteristic of this movement.   Miller is a playwright whose works reflect the major themes of modernism.   Death of a Salesman, which is perhaps his best-known piece, is a perfect example of this.   In it, he addresses the common modernist themes of alienation and loneliness through both his portrayal of society an... ...l.       Works Cited Baym, Franklin, Gottesman, Holland, et al., eds.   The Norton Anthology of American Literature.   4th ed.   New York: Norton, 1994. Corrigan, Robert W., ed. Arthur Miller.   Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1969. Costello, Donald P. â€Å"Arthur Miller’s Circles of Responsibility: A View From a Bridge and Beyond.† Modern Drama. 36 (1993): 443-453. Florio, Thomas A., ed. â€Å"Miller’s Tales.† The New Yorker.   70 (1994): 35-36. Hayashi, Tetsumaro.   Arthur Miller Criticism.   Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1969. Martin, Robert A., ed. Arthur Miller.   Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1982. Miller, Arthur.   The Archbishop’s Ceiling/The American Clock. New York: Grove Press,   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   1989. ---.   Death of a Salesman.   New York: Viking, 1965. ---.   Eight Plays.   New York:   Nelson Doubleday, 1981.      

Is What You See Real or Memorex?

We have different philosophers and different ideas from each of the philosophers, similar in some ways, vastly different in others and yet their ideas make a person think, as they are supposed to but what if neither Rene Descartes, George Berkeley or Thomas Reid are correct in their entirety? What if both ways of thinking are actually linked together enough to make them both correct and both incorrect?Let us start with the definition of epistemology where the origins of nature and limits of human knowledge are examined. Human knowledge in the aspect of the real world is limited.There is no one on Earth who knows everything whether it be real or imagined. (Rene Descartes belief of independent external world) This would become limited in any thought provoking conversation. If you were to ask people at random, if there is anything they know with certainty, they would say yes. They know for certain they are sitting or talking or looking at you or the tree. If you asked them if they were sure that they didn’t just perceive these instances they would chance to look at you like you were crazy but in the end there is also a perception.Take the example of the mind independent external world and ask yourself that if you died, would things in the world remain physically the same? The bed you slept in might until it was destroyed, the house in which you lived may remain a house but what about you as a person, you would not remain physically the same so in that view a mind independent world cannot be 100% accurate. One day you can see yourself in a mirror because you are alive, the next day you cannot because you are dead.On the other hand, you see things and believe them to be out in the world but what you see is only a perception which lends credence to Thomas Reid’s theory. Thomas Reid believes that we do not need certainty to acquire knowledge and I agree and as you will see by the following poem, the timing of perception may almost destroy Descartes and B erkley’s theories. See how that worked, I believe the following poem will destroy a theory and this is perception. NOW What has been and what will be, cannot be changed, cannot be seen.For yesterday is gone and done and tomorrow lies beyond the sun, yet there is reality, that fine line between futures and past that we define as now. The eyes have never seen, nor the ears ever heard, the falling of a star or the calling of a bird. They merely transmit shadows, vibrations they receive, along the neural networks, for the brain to be deceived into thinking that what we see and are believing and what we hear; but do we perceive reality or only what we think is there?Now a millisecond past, from eye or ear to mind and another billisecond just for the brain to define, so what we perceive as happening is at least a millisecond past. We cannot exist within the now, our reactions aren't that fast. So is what we see a piece of history by the time we can perceive or do our senses touch t he future, which do you believe? Either way it's plain to me that there is no now to be found. We live two separate times so why are we so bound? Now that I've given you a thought to twist your mind, I must say excuse the pun, I'm simply out of time.(Original copyright 1999 Cara Tapken-(Teirsha=pen) ) In reading this poem, where is the certainty now as suddenly a lot of questions have been posed and suddenly a whole new thought process will evolve into the metaphysical sense of perception. Take another example of looking at a field or horizon of trees, or any group of trees for that manner, how do they look? Ok so they look like trees but in seeing the trees do you see them as you might if there is no 3 dimensional quality or do you see them with a much defined 3-D quality?Each one will see this differently at different times which lends further conveyance of truth to the supernatural beliefs and so with this in mind where does Descartes and Berkley fit into this picture? Let us use God as an example. God is definitely a perception. Many of us believe in him, many of us think he is almighty and the basis of religion but outside of pictures for one, do we really know what he looks like? This is a form of perception as we do not know with certainty what he looks like but we only know from pictures and words of description. What of prayer?How do we really know that prayer works even though we believe? Do we see our prayers physically being listened to by God? Do we see God there with an outstretched hand in receiving? Also, Descartes believed in God and God was the centrifuge of his Roman Catholic faith and theory so in believing in God, when God is a perception and written words then how can Descartes claim the theories he does because suddenly there is no certainty. The Roman catholic faith believes in archangels, evil and good yet without seeing these in a physical sense whatsoever how can one obtain certainty in knowledge or vice versa?With regard to percepti on and certainty, how can these philosophers be wrong and right at the same time by validating one another’s theories and if there is a validation of theories then do they suddenly have related theories to for a whole new theory? Descrates believes in no knowledge without certainty and Reid believes in perception. Take into account of the poem which is a perception based poem with much pointing towards the reality of how our human brain, through proven science, works. Suddenly there is the certainty in knowledge and how perception works and is very real. Both philosophers are now correct and both are now wrong.Did we just blow two theories away, add to them or validate all or part of the theories these two obviously share? Mind independent external world does exist to a degree but as well, only by the degree of perception until the â€Å"brain can define† (CL Tapken). Now Clifford is famous for his evidentialist thesis that â€Å"It is wrong always, everywhere, and fo r anyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence. (W. K. Clifford). I simply would like to know where Clifford’s justification is for telling people that they way they think or how they think, simply because there is a lack of evidence, is wrong.I see him as suddenly wrong for being discriminatory in a sense as theory is based upon having no actual evidence for justification as science always dictates. The theory of using cancer cells to treat cancer is nothing but a theory, there is no evidence as it has not yet been tested to be proven but in thinking this way, according to Clifford, is wrong which is highly inconsistent with the continual forward progress of science. Now Berkley’s theory is much more rational in my opinion as he believes in both sides of what you can and cannot see.He believes in the mind and the thought processes that integrate a thought to reality and that one doesn’t need complete certainty for some knowledge and he calls this the la w of nature. He has a belief process in the realm of science but he couples that with a religion to form his belief that all things happen because of God and spirits. Now for those who are quite religious, this would be believed but then there are those who are atheists and or believe in the Darwinism theory of evolution thus suddenly, in either case there is no God.But is Berkeley right, to at least some belief that God is the reason behind everything that happens? Perception and gravity denounces, in part, if not all of Berkley’s theory that God is behind everything. The Bible and those who believe in the religion of God agree that God made the heavens and the earth. We will assume that this is not perception but true. But what of gravity? No where in history is it said that God created gravity. Gravity makes the world spin thus creating the â€Å"accidental† gravity. God did not create gravity by design so now it should be safely said that gravity began as a percept ion that turned scientific.Granted, our thought process began this way of thinking and proving this theory and that in itself would be a god driven theory in using Berkley’s theory. Look at the scale that sits in the doctor’s office. The knowledge to make the scale would be in conjunction with Berkley’s theory but for the scale to remain stationary due to gravity is outside his realm of thought as once again, God did not create gravity, therefore God cannot be behind everything that happens which, in the end once again, lends credence to pure perception.It is a fine line between these philosophers on what they agree and don’t agree with but in the end there are similarities in which makes them all correct in the way of validation so with this in mind, are they all thinking the same thing yet with different answers and does this make them all correct or incorrect because of their different answers? Which do you believe and why? Maybe I am the one who is to tally wrong and incoherent in my own opinions and beliefs.Maybe I have no concrete evidence or cannot fully understand the power of perception, metaphysical, supernatural or inanimate objects, maybe I believe in it all. Does what I believe in make me right, wrong, indifferent or simply this is my belief? Who is to say that I am right or that I disagree and maybe my way of being right or disagreeing is not accepted. We each have our own philosophies of life and the reasons why and this is what makes great debates and the world go around.So in the end I must say that I do not fully agree with any philosopher to date. I may agree with a portion of their principles and systems of belief but at the same time of incorporating my own reasons of this belief or lack of belief I, in my own self have just become a philosopher like everyone else, it is just the people who will determine the validity of my own views and will form their own philosophies.Philosophy is just that, no one is right an d no one is wrong it is simply a belief system of how we work minus any factual sciences or the addition of sciences and religion. As a last thought and question which incorporates all but none of these mentioned philosophers; is there really such a thing as an evil person or are they a person who simply does bad things?In short, I believe to some extent of what these philosophers believe but then again I do not for then I would have to agree with everything they say to fully believe in their philosophy, so am I say they are correct or incorrect? References Evidence for God. Famous Scientists Who Believed in God. (September 2008) http://www. godandscience. org/apologetics/sciencefaith. html Tapken, Cara. The Starlite Cafe 1999 (http://www. thestarlitecafe. com/poems/105/poem_91080479. html Theories of perception. September 2008. http://www. unc. edu/~megw/TheoriesofPerception. html

Us China Relations During The Cold War - 1628 Words

US-China Relations in the Cold War Rough Draft The Cold War was a time of great upheaval for the United States and for the world. After the detonation of the atomic bombs at the end of World War II, war itself was forever changed. Atomic weaponry brought the potential for destruction on a massive scale. Concurrently, nations all over the globe were left reeling from the casualties of the war. Communist Dictatorships took hold in much of Eastern Europe and Asia, under Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and others. During this period, two geopolitical giants arose, both nuclear tipped: the socialist communist USSR, and the capitalist democratic USA. After 45 years of hostility, the USSR eventually fell, bringing an end to the struggle. The United States and other western countries made a several political moves throughout the course of the war in an attempt to win out against Soviet Russia, one of which was an alliance with Communist China. The strategic collaboration between the United States and China during 1971-1989 was instrumental i n breaking down the communist bloc, weakening the Soviet Union, and ultimately bringing an end to the cold war through manipulation of geopolitical alliances and resources. China was a tremendously important ally because of its size, both in terms of population and territory. It was too big to be overlooked. Political scientists Andrew J. Nathan and Robert S. Ross remarked, â€Å"During the Cold War, China was the only major country that stood at theShow MoreRelatedThe War Of The Cold War757 Words   |  4 PagesAs tensions continued to augment profoundly throughout the latter half of the Cold War period, they brought forth a movement from a previous bipolar conflicting course, to one of a more multipolar nature. These tensions were now not only restricted to the Soviet Union and United states, but amongst multiple other nations of the globe. It became a general consensus that a notion of ‘peace’ was sought globally, hence, the emergence of dà ©tente. The nature of this idea in the short term conveyed itselfRead MoreWhy China Won t Overtake The United States Authored By Stephen G. Brooks1697 Words   |  7 Pages1. Introduction The article titled Why China Won’t Overtake the United States authored by Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth brings up many valid points and statistical data to support the thesis of the piece however, it is mainly presented from a liberal idealist point of view. While I agree with, ‘as the saying goes’, great power comes great responsibility, I do not agree with the articles premise or false assumption that a provisional â€Å"technological gap† or lack of Nobel Prizes and scientificRead MoreThe Rise of China Today China is widely notorious for its large dominance in world affairs1600 Words   |  7 PagesThe Rise of China Today China is widely notorious for its large dominance in world affairs regarding trade and wealth however china was not always one of the economic superpowers of the world, china like many other parts of the east had not had their industrial revolutions as early as western countries such as Britain and could easily be described as being primitive following 2000 years of imperial dynasties. The pressing issue that the UK government will have to face is what we to do with suchRead MoreWorld War II : The Great People s War1529 Words   |  7 PagesWorld War II (The Great People’s War) was of deep importance to the formation of today’s international relations system, however the following periods after this war between the greatest powers in the world are also of great significance. The analysis of those periods and their impact on world history will be the first approach of this assessment. It is important to clarify that these periods cannot be annualized as isolated e vents that happened in History, but related events that in a way or anotherRead MoreA Report On The Sino Russian Relations971 Words   |  4 PagesIt would be a negligence not mention a shift in the Sino-Russian relations. Joseph Nye, a former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National Intelligence Council, argues that in the wake of the Cold War in 1991 â€Å"†¦ de facto US-China alliance ended and a China-Russia rapprochement begun†. Indeed, the year of 1992 heard the political rhetoric about â€Å"pursuing a ‘constructive partnership’†, which was followed by 1996’s statements of â€Å"strategic partnership†, which resulted in a treatyRead MoreDonald Trump’S Election Was Shrouded In Mystery And Conflict.1512 Words   |  7 PagesDonald Trump’s election was shrouded in mystery and conflict. Foregoing the blatant notes of racism, sexism, fascism, and misogyny, Trump’s campaign also brought ab out a new discussion regarding relations with Russia. Throughout his campaign, Trump brought up ideas of repairing the deplorable relations between the United States and Russia, sparking debate throughout the political sphere. Specifically, Senator Lindsey Graham called attention to the fact Russia is still a grave threat to United StatesRead MoreStrategic Importance Of Latin America In Cold War And Beyond.1572 Words   |  7 PagesStrategic Importance of Latin America in Cold War and Beyond Background and Introduction The 20th century appears to be most destructive and productive in the history. From revolutions to wars, from colonization’s to independent states, from industrial revolution to Information technology revelation. This century had a lot to offer for historians. This century started with the different revolutions in countries to over throw monarch system, including China, turkey, Russia, and in England which colonizeRead MoreChina s Foreign Policy Record967 Words   |  4 Pagesparticularly post-Cold War, a better understanding of the distinct approaches a realist theorist and a liberal theorist may have to the same event or policy, can be further explored through the lens of China. In his book, International Politics of the Asia Pacific, Yahuda states, â€Å"It is only since the end of the Cold War that China’s leaders have developed policies that recognize that the future security and prosperity of their country requires the cultivation of close relations with the Asia-PacificRead MoreThe Conflict Between Ussr And Usa During The Cold War1178 Words   |  5 Pagesprocess in which colonies becomes independent of the colonizing country. This process can be as violent as peaceful and most of the revolutions emerging from decolonization were lead by a strong nationalism (Collins English Dictionary, 2007). After World War II, most of the European countries did not have enough economic and political stability to sustain to the different revolts taking place in their colonies and to help them to improve social and economic developments. But, it was inconceivable, for economicRead MoreMao Zedong and Nikita Khrushchev1540 Words   |  6 Pagesideological relations between Mao Zedong and Nikita Khrushchev lead to the Sini-Soviet sp lit in the 1960s? 1. History: The worsening of political and ideological relationship between Mao Zedong and Nikita Khrushchev led to the Sino-Soviet Split. In 1960, China and Soviet Union were believed to be the two largest states with the communist approach internationally (Ross 3). The origin of Sino- Soviet split can be found from the era of 1940’s, when China fought the Sino-Japanese war (1937-45)